Work Reform

9964 readers

353 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world

153

The first results from the world’s biggest basic income experiment in Kenya are in - Vox (www.vox.com)

submitted 11 months ago by sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf to c/workreform@lemmy.world

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

...it was asking a specific question, because that’s how research work.

"One of the big questions GiveDirectly is trying to answer is how to direct cash to low-income households."

What I'm saying is that if they are excluding key demographics from those low-income households, then their study is bias. Nothing more, nothing less.

The conclusion they came up with regarding the purchase of alcohol might not even make sense, for example, if they gave money to a high-religious group of people who don't consume alcohol. Is that making my point any clearer?

I was only suggestion caution based on how I know the other study was rigged.

Would you prefer it if they specifically selected drug addict and long term unemployed people?

Depends on the study's objective.

Put it this way: If a study is trying to find out whether UBI would benefit a community, state, or country, it NEEDS to include an accurate representation of the demographics of those groups of people.

When you say it was rigged, you demonstrate that you don’t understand the question that was tested in the experiment.

I'm saying the other study was rigged. I can't even see the methodology of this study because the link is broken. If I could see how they distributed this money, and whether any exclusions were presented, I could form a more accurate opinion.